Your last two posts showed otherwise, but ill take it for now.
Fun to play is subjective ofc and i would disagree.
I dont claim to have the last word on the fun of the class or the fantasy. However, the abandonment of the SV spec after its rework and its insanely low numbers show us that this sentiment is shared by the vast majority of hunters. A class identity ofc isnt set in stone, but if so many hunters dislike the rework, you should reconsider if your rework was the right move.
A class identity ofc isnt set in stone
So you agree with me.
but if so many hunters dislike the rework, you should reconsider if your rework was the right move.
That’s a completely different subject.
obviously you’re too lazy to google where this is from? The refference is even in the “fansite”
The only reason anyone actually had any use for a melee-weapon back then was because of the arbitrary restrictions added to ranged weapons; the minimum attack-range. These were added because the devs thought hunters needed something like this to serve as a disadvantage for the class.
That by no means meant that the aspect of melee-combat was considered a core feature for the class. In practicality, melee was always intended to be used situationally whenever you were forced to, and your were incentivised to, by design, try to get away from your enemy to once again fire your ranged weapon.
Also worth noting is that for every expansion they added, starting with TBC, more and more of the focus on melee was removed, to the point where melee-weapons were nothing but stat sticks.
There’s a big difference between having classes that are fully designed around the concept of melee-combat, compared to the Hunter class where melee was, by design, implemented to be a disadvantage for us.
There really is no point in comparing those…
They didn’t make our focus on melee a more prominent feature. Quite the opposite…
Nor did they ever add anything to further incentivise players to head into melee-range, during that time.
I have mixed feelings about that. I don’t think the melee was ever intended to be a major draw to the class. But the game itself drew a lot more inspiration from older RPGs of its time. Archers having weaknesses in melee was / is a common RPG theme. But that weakness usually isn’t the draw for those interested in the ranged character (archer / gunner / hunter in WoW’s case). I think at the very least, most players who stuck with the class weren’t playing it for the melee portions.
That said, I don’t think they couldn’t expand on that fantasy. I think ultimately that was what they wanted to do in Legion and knew it wouldn’t be popular with hunters who had been playing the class up until that point.
The mistake was not the fact they wanted to expand on the fantasy and explore the idea of melee which they gave up on entirely for two expansions. The mistake was removing one of the few ways those who enjoy ranged weaponry could differentiate themselves. There’s many fantasies that could be explored focusing the ranged weapon itself but we have two when we used to have three. One of which focuses more so on the pets than the weapon, which is fine but it doesn’t really leave a whole lot of room to explore the fantasy that many were drawn to the class for originally.
Blizz should just make a 4th spec. Bite the bullet and admit they made a mistake deleting a spec. They absolutely should not delete the current spec and repeat that mistake. I again, fully believe there is room within the fantasy for the current spec. But I believe they can and should do more for us.
That is exactly the point.
Technically they could expand on any theme or fantasy they want. They make a holy hunter, or a hunter who wields arcane magic, or one who summons demons to his side instead of his normal pets or even one who uses elemental magic or builds turrets. You can probably find some examples of tropes for those themes somewhere to show “Seeeee, this can also be a hunter”
The issue isnt that a hunter cant possibly be melee under any circumstances, but how this change flies with the community. And the hunter community has strongly rejected the fantasy of a melee hunter in WoW. Its time to revert or shove it off to a 4th spec.
I can think of several off the top of my head, yeah. It’s obvious, whether we agree with it or not, that Blizz wanted to expand the theme of what the hunter could be in WoW. And honestly? I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
The problem was how they chose to implement their new idea. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if they had just made it a 4th spec to begin with. I don’t think it would be nearly as big of an issue within the community since no one would have lost out.
Seriously, just making a 4th spec resolves a ton of issues within the community.
Maybe my memory is skewed, but didn’t a similar uproar happen when combat rogue was reworked into outlaw. I specifically remember lots of complaints about the spec. At the time at least, it really felt like a majority of rogues disliked the spec, the change in class fantasy, etc. But most of that has faded now. So was that rework the right move?
Continuing the comparison between two specs with pretty drastic reworks… I can’t help but wonder if part of the contributing difference to perception is that Outlaw rogue has a niche in end game content that other rogue specs simply can’t fill, whereas SV really doesn’t excel at anything that other hunter specs can’t do equally well.
I doubt it’s that to be honest. Survival has had a couple tiers where it was our best performing spec, and it currently really isn’t that bad in M+ due to uncapped aoe on bombs. Additionally, they were solid pretty much all of last expansion in arena.
I really don’t think it’s performance related (though I’m certain it doesn’t help when they aren’t doing well, thankfully they recieving a buff next patch).
It’s consistently one of (and currently) the least played spec in the game. I think the changes to survival were honestly far more drastic than what they did to combat (not to downplay that rework however).
It had that, yes.
Depends on who you ask. I would argue no, I think they should’ve worked on Combat itself, although with that said, I don’t actually remember what the Rogue specs were like back then so I can’t say whether it was possible to distinguish it from the other two specs.
And either way…
When applying this question to the rework of SV, and comparing that to what they did to Combat, there’s one massive difference that really says it all.
Combat was changed into Outlaw, but it was still a spec that adheres to the main class fantasy of the Rogue; a spec focusing on dual-wielding two 1h melee-weapons, relying on stealth, focusing on managing Energy through regeneration along with spenders/finishers.
With Survival, the melee-version still focused on traps, along with pets, and in some ways, the idea of augmented effects and the use of animal venom and explosives. But the main issue…it was no longer a spec that focused on a fantasy and theme surrounding the use of ranged weapons.
How a spec utilizes the idea of for example animal venom, explosives, traps, and more, can make all the difference, despite those individual base concepts being present in both versions of the spec.
How those individual elements are realized both in fantasy but also in terms of mechanical implementation/functionality, is what determines whether a lot of players will even consider trying out a spec or not. Why? Because it all amounts to the identity you’re trying to create for yourself.
Oh I wanna make it clear. I don’t think that’s the only reason. My point was that I think that sort of issue could definitely contribute and make it that much harder (along with lost mechanics, fantasy changes, on and on) for people to even want to use the spec.
Like I love the idea of melee survival, but it’s hard to justify playing it. Not because it’s melee, but just because it really doesn’t offer anything unique that other hunters don’t have that feels impactful beyond melee. Maybe I’m wrong in that regard, and maybe it is great in M+ and Arena. But it just doesn’t feel like it’s has much going for it. And that’s… not good lol.
Arguing it was a more drastic rework is fair. If you’re talking about mechanics and not fantasy? That’s a reasonable point to make. If you’re talking about fantasy, I’d disagree.
That’s true, but this really boils down to a fantasy argument of what you think a hunter even is. I personally don’t think hunters have to use ranged weapons to be a hunter. But others might disagree. Who is right? Idk. Ultimately it’s a point of opinion.
I just find it weird that players generally despised outlaw when it was reworked, because of the drastic change in fantasy. I still remember the cries of: “I want to be a rogue, not a pirate!”
I’d agree with that. Wholeheartedly so. But I personally don’t find the two specs to be all that drastically different in terms of theme, fantasy, etc. on paper. It’s the implementation that differs. But I don’t think that immediately means that making the spec melee was the wrong call.
Obviously that’s just my opinion and meaningless, but I don’t think I’m the only person out there that feels this way.
The reason I don’t play it (despite preferring melee classes even) is because it doesn’t feel like it offers much more than the other specs beyond melee mechanics. The spec feels unfocused. It’s supposed to be the traps and poisons melee spec. but it just feels like “the weird melee BM-lite spec”. The fact that it’s melee isn’t my issue. That’s the only reason I care about it at all. My issue with survival is that it’s thematic focus is all over the place and feels a bit lackluster.
And that’s sad, because I want to love melee survival. But I don’t think the spec being melee is the problem. It’s… everything else lol.
Ah, I see. Yeah, I was focusing more so mechanically there. I do think the fantasy appeals to a different subset of players than most hunters, but I think it’s a valid one that should exist. I don’t have any issue with the fantasy other than how they implemented it. I just think that due to how drastic it was, and how it was going to obviously push players away because of that (and the removal of a fantasy many enjoyed prior to it), it should have just been a 4th spec.
I still argue it should be a 4th spec. I think Blizz screwed up hard in Legion and they set a really bad precedent. My arguments are much in favor of protecting the current spec as well as getting back what I miss lol. I would really hate to see them pull another Legion to the spec and see them learn nothing from that expansion so to speak.
Guess what before Legion it was a range spec and that’s going back to Vanilla .
The melee aspect was never it’s main form of damage , range was . Melee was more for when enemies got to close to use range weapons and hunter pets lost aggro.
Also this game already had enough melee specs and if they would of left Surv as range with the addition of DHs in Legion it would of been an even 12 /12 split. Most of us now actually want a 4th spec for hunters so we can get a version of rsurv back and let the few that think they are the majority that play msurv keep their spec.
Surv should of been taken back to the range/melee hunter it was before Cata for Legion .
With the main focus on range , with melee abilities for when enemies are in close range.
Sounds like you didn’t pick up hunter until it went melee in Legion .
Let me guess you play one of the many melee specs prior to that and decided to try out hunter when it finally got a straight melee option ?
“The best thing about MELEE survival is being RANGED”
No most players are not on the forums complaining about melee surv . Most are in the game not playing the spec and as for your Bra thing you sound like a 16 y.o stoner sitting at the beach . Hey maybe you can order the class some pizza Mr. Spicoli
Hmm, yeah, it kind of doesn’t make sense, actually. You’re talking about deliberately putting yourself at a disadvantage “for the thrill of it”. That might be a compelling fantasy for some people but it sure as hell isn’t an appropriate foundation for an entire spec even if Survival didn’t already have a fantasy before the change. It makes sense only as a subspec within an existing spec. Forcing 1/3 of the Hunter class to be automatically worse off just for the hell of it is the sort of backwards decision makings only delusional melee fanatics are capable of.
You’re the one who comes to a Hunter spec that says “resourceful opportunist” and thinks “yep, melee” so actually it seems you’re the one that’s terrible at judging a spec’s fantasy.
“Non-Hunters” means people who primarily play other classes. Simple as that. The Survival revamp was explicitly aimed at appealing to people who didn’t play the class over people who did. Blizzard themselves said as much so it’s funny seeing all the Survival fanboys pipe up with their opposition.
As per usual this is missing the point. Hunters never lacked a ranged weapon before Legion. It is as core to the class as it gets. Ranged weapons defined the Hunter aesthetic and playstyle more essentially and significantly than anything else. If melee combat could be gradually phased out of the class with minimal impact to the aesthetic or appeal that should tell you it wasn’t an important feature. As other people demonstrated, it was actually a deliberate limitation of the class.
In any case; as Lazyguide pointed out it’s not like melee is something that’s not compatible with a Hunter fantasy archetype. The fact is that lacking a ranged weapon is incompatible with the World of Warcraft Hunter archetype. There are still ways to represent melee Hunters that are far better compromises than making an entire Hunter spec melee in its baseline.
It’s literally so disadvantageous to the spec that we get weekly “save SV” threads here and on Reddit since Legion. It’s cemented SV was the most troubled and unpopular spec in the game. Suggesting it’s an advantage of the spec is lunacy. Scroll up to Taigertraps who’s nominally on your side but arguing that the disadvantage is the point of it (for the “thrill of it” or whatever").
No because some players like melee so it makes sense to provide those playstyles. What doesn’t make sense is continually adding more specs to the crowded melee pool and then turning existing ranged specs to melee in classes that are otherwise entirely ranged.
Evidently it’s so uninteresting and unfun to many people that it ends up being the least popular spec in the game for years on end. Womp womp.
This is why good game design doesn’t just implement things for the sake of being “quirky”. Uniqueness is important but it’s not the ONLY factor, and in Legion they chased spec uniqueness to the point where they eroded class identity. Survival was the single worst example of this.
Thanks for trying to speak for me but I actually have a clear view of what I meant. Most people have a preferred/favourite in-game fantasy. The Hunter is a popular class that includes a lot of different people. The problem is not only is it evident that Blizzard was chasing a different audience when it came to Survival, they admitted it when asked about it.
It’s from a guide book for a non-cannon Warcraft-themed board game. It explicitly states that they are significant derivations of WoW classes that aren’t part of WoW and, hilariously enough, this is what it says at the start of the melee Hunter section before the part you quoted:
“Hunters use ranged weapons; everyone knows it. If you’re going out to hunt animals, you have to hit them from a ways off, or they run away. Also, hunters deal with some nasty creatures — if they get too close, they risk being clawed, bit, gored and otherwise savaged. Plus if you start shooting early enough, you can hurt an opponent pretty badly before he gets anywhere close to you, and some hunter stings are best used at range.”
Never even mind the other Hunter variants it details e.g. Shadow Hunter. So it’s pretty clear that this is an unofficial “just for lols” variant and still an inappropriate foundation for a WoW spec; much less an existing WoW spec.
This might be the case for you but I can assure you it’s an enormous barrier for most Hunters.
Literally a BM hunter until Legion retconn
I don’t really think it’s fair to say “most”. I’m sure there are lots who take issue with it being melee. I’m not gonna dispute that. But my entire point is that there’s more than just “it’s melee, ewww” going on with SV.
I don’t disagree. I just think it’s a bit unlikely that we’ll see 4th specs implemented. But maybe hunter, like druid, should be the exception? I don’t have an answer for that.
I can respect that. I guess at the end of the day I really do love the idea of a melee hunter. I find it sad that SV is… the way it is atm and so unpopular as a result. But I don’t think it has to be that way inherently because it’s melee. But who knows.